These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Email CommentIgnore CommenterFollow Commenter

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

Donald Trump is often lumped in with the out of fashion Andrew Jackson, who was moderately anti-protectionism, signing a bill to cut tariffs but not to sweep them away (and then staring down a Southern secessionist threat from his free-trading Veep John C. Calhoun). In contrast, Alexander Hamilton-mania is sweeping New York City, due to Ron Chernow’s bestselling biography of the first Treasury secretary, and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip-hop Broadway musical adaptation of Chernows’ book, which reimagines the Scottish laird’s grandson as an immigrant Person of Color.

Ideologically, however, on this issue Trump was closer to his fellow New Yorker Hamilton than to Jackson., much less South Carolina’s Calhoun. Hamilton offered the first influential plan for tariff walls to protect American factories in the 1790s and remains the intellectual godfather of American protectionism.

This season of “house of cards” has a plot line where 2 white guys from Tennessee join up with ISIS and kidnap an American family. Another plotline is about a young, media darling GOP candidate who is somehow best bros with the founder of Google and is manipulating searches to win the election.

I didn’t realize it during the first 3 years but that show is just an edgier SVU – bizzare liberal fantasy/propaganda

Actually it is Bernie who needs to record a hip-hop video. The man chained himself to a black protestor to show his solidarity with the civil rights struggle, but the former-Goldwater-girl, Hillary, is the one getting the Black vote.

Well, Trump should actually, go see "Hamilton," since I read that not a single Presidential candidate has attended a show. He should make it "a family affair," maybe with the Carsons, Christies, and strategic other families and guests - what about that LA father whose HS football star son was shot by a 3-time convicted felon, an illegal? The show would be sold-out way into 2019. And, all the networks and prints would be trampling over themselves trying to get a glimpse (fighting over curb space) of all the glamour and gowns on the Red Carpet going into the Richard Rogers Theater. Everybody makes money! I feel like I'm auditioning for set-designer for this gig!

Last night Trump made me think of Joseph Kennedy, first chairman of the SEC, of whom his appointer said “Take’s one to catch one”– meaning a crook. Although he wasn’t so much of a crook as Paul Johnson said he was when he parroted that lie made up by Nixonites about being a bootlegger. Anyways when did the marginal utility of a federal government that investors had a stake run into negative returns?

Hamilton gets points for being a mobile, rootless sort. This is kind of funny because all the celebrities on the genealogy shows like Finding Your Roots or Henry Louis Gates PBS piece sound like Victorians when it comes to THEIR ancestral traits and THEIR identity. It’s revealing that for leftists and liberal centrists, who would be presumed to support tabla raza orthodoxy vis-a-vis the Bell Curve, those people are obsessed with the connection between genes and talent and personality.

Trump also doesn’t engage in dumping on the wrong kind of whites (i.e. those lacking a Ph.D., making less than 100k a year, not working for a think-tank or are heteros), who are lazy, useless deplorable trash which our diverse country is well shut of. Useless white scum, unless they are heroic single moms or misunderstood, wounded puppies on death row, about whom Susan Sarandon or somebody like her will make a movie, which will be plugged ad nauseum on NPR.

This is kind of funny because all the celebrities on the genealogy shows like Finding Your Roots or Henry Louis Gates PBS piece sound like Victorians when it comes to THEIR ancestral traits and THEIR identity.

Cf Dustin Hoffman on a recent episode of FINDING YOUR ROOTS.After learning that the Bolsheviks had killed both his grandfather and his great-grandfather (and had also imprisoned his great-grandmother in a concentration camp for 5 years), he was reduced to tears and weepingly proclaimed "People ask me today, 'What are you? I say, 'I'm a Jew."

Donald Trump should make a publicized visit to Hamilton! (the rap musical) with an entourage then afterwards hold a sidewalk press conference where he gets to talk about Alexander Hamilton’s role in tariffs to protect American industry. Tariffs were the major funding for our much smaller Federal government until 1913 when we got the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank. Not a coincidence!
What else funded the Federal Government before 1913? Excise taxes on guns, alcohol and tobacco and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (the ATF) was in charge of enforcement and tax collections.

One thing it does is that is really culture-jams these teenybopper highbrows. This Hamilton thing is on the edge between cognoscenti and the masses right now (think in terms of 12 months before it goes on tour with media blitz). It'd be so easy to do, so right on with Trump's campaign, reinforces his New Yorkerness in a good way, trolls the f out the right people, and will actually do what highbrowers say they hope art does, which is to inform discussion of ideas and events.

No, it's because in Hamilton's time, the Northern elite consisted of merchant manufacturers. Hamilton's views aligned with elite interest at the time, and clashed with the interests of the Southern planter elite and of the populist, small scale yeoman farmers, whom Jackson later championed.

Today's elite are not in manufacturing, but are in finance and related fields.

That may well be, but we've had a few centuries of experience since then.

Protectionism is a mixed bag. There's no way to do it without creating (domestic) losers as well as winners. Protect our computer chip makers, and you jack up input costs to our computer system makers (Dell, Cisco...) thus harming them. Protect our farm equipment makers and you harm our farmers. Protect our shoe makers: goodbye $20 shoes.

There *may* be some optimal way to balance these interests and so maximize some sensible measure of social welfare. But in the US policy isn't made by a benevolent omniscient dictator. It's made, sausage-like, through legislative dealing driven by competitive lobbying and rent seeking.

Handing ever more such power to the political process isn't going to get us to any optimum, or close to it. What it is sure to do is increase the return to influence peddling.

There's a lot we can like about Trump, but the protectionism isn't one of them.

Donald Trump should make a publicized visit to Hamilton! (the rap musical) with an entourage then afterwards hold a sidewalk press conference where he gets to talk about Alexander Hamilton's role in tariffs to protect American industry. Tariffs were the major funding for our much smaller Federal government until 1913 when we got the Federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank. Not a coincidence!
What else funded the Federal Government before 1913? Excise taxes on guns, alcohol and tobacco and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (the ATF) was in charge of enforcement and tax collections.

Damn, that’d be a mega-shiv. Someone stovepipe this to his campaign.

One thing it does is that is really culture-jams these teenybopper highbrows. This Hamilton thing is on the edge between cognoscenti and the masses right now (think in terms of 12 months before it goes on tour with media blitz). It’d be so easy to do, so right on with Trump’s campaign, reinforces his New Yorkerness in a good way, trolls the f out the right people, and will actually do what highbrowers say they hope art does, which is to inform discussion of ideas and events.

No, it’s because in Hamilton’s time, the Northern elite consisted of merchant manufacturers. Hamilton’s views aligned with elite interest at the time, and clashed with the interests of the Southern planter elite and of the populist, small scale yeoman farmers, whom Jackson later championed.

Today’s elite are not in manufacturing, but are in finance and related fields.

then staring down a Southern secessionist threat from his free-trading Veep John C. Calhoun)

Maybe that is the best tack the protectionist side can take; associate free traders with Southern slavers. And those Southern slavers were democrats too! We routinely see the GOPers get defensive about the racism charge and point out that the KKK were democrats who were preventing GOP voters from exercising their rights. They love to point out that the Civil Rights acts received a higher percentage of Congressional support from the GOP than the democrats.

So if you can make the charge stick that the original free traders in the US were the democrat, Southern slavers, it might short circuit the GOP brains and cause them to change their views. After all the party of Lincoln and all that…

Caitlyn Jenner goes on a tirade against Hillary Clinton on this Sunday’s episode of “I Am Cait,” insisting that the Democratic presidential candidate is a “f***ing liar” and the “country is over,” if she’s elected. Watch the video below!

As Gossip Cop reported, Season 2 of Jenner’s reality show sees her embarking on a bus tour with her transgender friends. During their trip, the women begin to argue politics after Chandi Moore asks Caitlyn her opinion of Donald Trump. “I think he would have a hard time with women,” says Jenner, who further offers, “It doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good for women’s issues. I think he would be very good for women’s issues.”

The rest of the women groan at the lifelong Republican’s statement, but Jenner explains in a confessional, “Just because I’m a woman now doesn’t make me all of a sudden liberal.” The debate escalates when the women bring up Clinton, to which Jenner says, “I would never, ever, ever vote for Hillary… If Hillary becomes president, the country is over.”

Jenner’s friend Candis Cayne attempts to argue that there’s “a lot to love about Hillary,” and that she’s “an amazing woman,” but an annoyed Jenner starts yelling, “What has she done in her life?! What has she done?” The former Olympian adds, “She was a lousy senator. She was horrible. Look at all of the things that are going on in the Middle East, all because of what she did. Look at Benghazi. She lied to us! She’s a f***ing liar!”

Because Jackson is unpopular now, and Trump, with his clownish vulgar used car salesman demeanor that will repel moderate respectable middle class white lady voters like a duck’s back repels water, is wildly unpopular outside the about 20% of Americans that form his core (35% of GOP x 50% of Americans that are GOP… roughly).

But Wait! Nixon was wildly unpopular, and Nixon won a popular landslide!!!
Hmmm, yes, Nixon was always unpopular with the media and academic crowd… but he wasn’t beyond the pale of respectability when he won the landslide. Nixon became broadly unpopular AFTER Watergate, AFTER the election.
Yeh sure, in hindsight, Nixon looks a tad creepy and unshaven, and his private tapes contained statements that would have made him disreputable if made in public, but he had no utterly non-presidential vibe at the time like Trump does now. T

rump is broadly unpopular now, BEFORE the election. Apples and oranges and wishful thinking do not a Trump victory make.

Alexander Hamilton's biggest scandal was when he was seduced by a married woman who drew the affair out as long as she could and, with the help of her husband, blackmailed him. Probably not gay. Some of the other founders finally took him aside and figured out what was going on.

Hamilton’s contemporary esteem is a lot like that for white Conquistador Americans who claim to speak on behalf of the meztizo masses. Because they are foreigners who come from a place with a lot of non-whites, are presumed to be somewhat non-white themselves. That’s loopy, but here we are.

Perhaps if we could just get Trump to sing a little hip hop surrounded by a more diverse cast.

Trump must have some theater connections when all those Bernie kids have there hearts broken a Lin-Manuel endorsement would go a long way.

Actually it is Bernie who needs to record a hip-hop video. The man chained himself to a black protestor to show his solidarity with the civil rights struggle, but the former-Goldwater-girl, Hillary, is the one getting the Black vote.

“Hamilton offered the first influential plan for tariff walls to protect American factories in the 1790s and remains the intellectual godfather of American protectionism.”

That’s actually not quite true. The tariff of 1789 was designed to raise a revenue for the United States government, largely with the object of paying interest on US debt. There were then few factories in the US to protect. The first true protective tariff was the tariff of 1816, which protected the large number of factories which had sprung up during the War of 1812. Jefferson’s Embargo Act of 1807, by the way, also played a large role in developing American industry: capital which had heretofore been invested in shipping was then invested in factories.

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I’m convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb!”

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I’m convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb!”

I haven't yet read a Hamilton biography, but I've read some biographies of his contemporaries enough to feel like I have a vague handle on him.

One trait he and Trump may share is Hamilton did not suffer fools gladly. Many people approached him with ideas on how our banking system should work, etc., and if he listened to them, if the plan was stupid, he'd tell them to their face.

On more than one occasion during Washington's presidency, an offended "person of importance" would seek a hearing with Washington, to let fly on how Hamilton had talked to them, he should be fired immediately, etc.

Typically, Washington would feign being appalled, and tell the offended he would call Hamilton in immediately and attend to the matter appropriately, while ushering the tearful and grateful offended party out the door.
He would then call Hamilton in, compare notes, laugh, and tell him "keep doing what you're doing."

Washington was well aware Hamilton was absolutely brilliant, and was eternally grateful to have him around.

I recall reading about Franklin's opinion of Adams, btw. He said "sometimes Adams makes very good sense, while other times, he's quite out of his mind." This would lend to the idea that there was no way Adams would enjoy being around Hamilton, since Hamilton would tell Adams he was stupid to his face, while Franklin would never do that, yet Adams disliked Franklin too, essentially thought Franklin was a power-hungry conniving weasel, and set about rumors that Franklin was a turncoat.

In any case, I read enough about Adams to know he was eccentric to say the least, but by most accounts by people who matter, Hamilton kicked ass all day, every day.

Perhaps if we could just get Trump to sing a little hip hop surrounded by a more diverse cast.

Trump must have some theater connections when all those Bernie kids have there hearts broken a Lin-Manuel endorsement would go a long way.

Well, Trump should actually, go see “Hamilton,” since I read that not a single Presidential candidate has attended a show. He should make it “a family affair,” maybe with the Carsons, Christies, and strategic other families and guests – what about that LA father whose HS football star son was shot by a 3-time convicted felon, an illegal? The show would be sold-out way into 2019. And, all the networks and prints would be trampling over themselves trying to get a glimpse (fighting over curb space) of all the glamour and gowns on the Red Carpet going into the Richard Rogers Theater. Everybody makes money! I feel like I’m auditioning for set-designer for this gig!

Hamilton gets points for being a mobile, rootless sort. This is kind of funny because all the celebrities on the genealogy shows like Finding Your Roots or Henry Louis Gates PBS piece sound like Victorians when it comes to THEIR ancestral traits and THEIR identity. It's revealing that for leftists and liberal centrists, who would be presumed to support tabla raza orthodoxy vis-a-vis the Bell Curve, those people are obsessed with the connection between genes and talent and personality.

Trump also doesn't engage in dumping on the wrong kind of whites (i.e. those lacking a Ph.D., making less than 100k a year, not working for a think-tank or are heteros), who are lazy, useless deplorable trash which our diverse country is well shut of. Useless white scum, unless they are heroic single moms or misunderstood, wounded puppies on death row, about whom Susan Sarandon or somebody like her will make a movie, which will be plugged ad nauseum on NPR.

This is kind of funny because all the celebrities on the genealogy shows like Finding Your Roots or Henry Louis Gates PBS piece sound like Victorians when it comes to THEIR ancestral traits and THEIR identity.

Cf Dustin Hoffman on a recent episode of FINDING YOUR ROOTS.After learning that the Bolsheviks had killed both his grandfather and his great-grandfather (and had also imprisoned his great-grandmother in a concentration camp for 5 years), he was reduced to tears and weepingly proclaimed “People ask me today, ‘What are you? I say, ‘I’m a Jew.”

Much more nuanced, and less signalling, to say Hoffman's family were basically "kulaks", class victims, who died in gulags. Then you have to think about who ran those camps, and who all was victimized by those camps.

"Hamilton offered the first influential plan for tariff walls to protect American factories in the 1790s and remains the intellectual godfather of American protectionism."

That's actually not quite true. The tariff of 1789 was designed to raise a revenue for the United States government, largely with the object of paying interest on US debt. There were then few factories in the US to protect. The first true protective tariff was the tariff of 1816, which protected the large number of factories which had sprung up during the War of 1812. Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, by the way, also played a large role in developing American industry: capital which had heretofore been invested in shipping was then invested in factories.

The federal government made its money from tariffs in 1790. No income tax. No cap gains tax. No corporate tax.

That's why the free-trade states pushed the income tax (which they naïvely thought they wouldn't pay-- thanks, Woodrow!)

There was an income tax repeal amendment going around a few decades ago, called the Liberty Amendment, I think. The 15-20 states that have ratified it were first in line to ratify the Sixteenth a century ago.

No, it's because in Hamilton's time, the Northern elite consisted of merchant manufacturers. Hamilton's views aligned with elite interest at the time, and clashed with the interests of the Southern planter elite and of the populist, small scale yeoman farmers, whom Jackson later championed.

Today's elite are not in manufacturing, but are in finance and related fields.

Makes sense they would like Hamilton, the champion of central banking, which Jackson famously strangled in its infancy.

The federal government made its money from tariffs in 1790. No income tax. No cap gains tax. No corporate tax.

That’s why the free-trade states pushed the income tax (which they naïvely thought they wouldn’t pay– thanks, Woodrow!)

There was an income tax repeal amendment going around a few decades ago, called the Liberty Amendment, I think. The 15-20 states that have ratified it were first in line to ratify the Sixteenth a century ago.

Because Jackson is unpopular now, and Trump, with his clownish vulgar used car salesman demeanor that will repel moderate respectable middle class white lady voters like a duck's back repels water, is wildly unpopular outside the about 20% of Americans that form his core (35% of GOP x 50% of Americans that are GOP... roughly).

But Wait! Nixon was wildly unpopular, and Nixon won a popular landslide!!!
Hmmm, yes, Nixon was always unpopular with the media and academic crowd... but he wasn't beyond the pale of respectability when he won the landslide. Nixon became broadly unpopular AFTER Watergate, AFTER the election.
Yeh sure, in hindsight, Nixon looks a tad creepy and unshaven, and his private tapes contained statements that would have made him disreputable if made in public, but he had no utterly non-presidential vibe at the time like Trump does now. T

rump is broadly unpopular now, BEFORE the election. Apples and oranges and wishful thinking do not a Trump victory make.

I keep reading and hearing how unpopular Trump is, yet he’s beaten the other so-called moderate and more appealing candidates like a bongo drum.

But still, as regards why Trump is like Jackson: it’s the hair, people, the hair!

Take out a 20 dollar bill and check out Jackson’t portrait! Trump’s hair may be a little wild but he’s got nothing on Jackson.

And on a personal note, Jackson was a homicidal maniac who makes Trump look like the soul of moderation. If we find Trump to be a little over-the-top, well, that’s because lately American politics has become so much buttoned-down that it used to be…

Caitlyn Jenner goes on a tirade against Hillary Clinton on this Sunday’s episode of “I Am Cait,” insisting that the Democratic presidential candidate is a “f***ing liar” and the “country is over,” if she’s elected. Watch the video below!

As Gossip Cop reported, Season 2 of Jenner’s reality show sees her embarking on a bus tour with her transgender friends. During their trip, the women begin to argue politics after Chandi Moore asks Caitlyn her opinion of Donald Trump. “I think he would have a hard time with women,” says Jenner, who further offers, “It doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good for women’s issues. I think he would be very good for women’s issues.”

The rest of the women groan at the lifelong Republican’s statement, but Jenner explains in a confessional, “Just because I’m a woman now doesn’t make me all of a sudden liberal.” The debate escalates when the women bring up Clinton, to which Jenner says, “I would never, ever, ever vote for Hillary… If Hillary becomes president, the country is over.”

Jenner’s friend Candis Cayne attempts to argue that there’s “a lot to love about Hillary,” and that she’s “an amazing woman,” but an annoyed Jenner starts yelling, “What has she done in her life?! What has she done?” The former Olympian adds, “She was a lousy senator. She was horrible. Look at all of the things that are going on in the Middle East, all because of what she did. Look at Benghazi. She lied to us! She’s a f***ing liar!”

As I’ve said before, Bruce hasn’t been right in the haid since he topped Guido Kratschmer…

…for the gold in ’76.

So I’d expect that the big blonde alpha Donald gets him where he lives…and long has.

Most countries are in favour of protectionism while industrialising and trying to catch up with more developed nations. Once industrialised, they tend to switch to free trade so as to get other countries to buy their stuff and borrow their money. However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

Trump is unpopular because he’s admitting that the US is in decline and needs to rebuild itself. He’s also implying that the productive side of the US economy (farming, manufacturing, product design, etc) is just as important as the financial side. His neoliberal critics argue the opposite – production isn’t that important and that the US should do as Britain has done and give priority to the financial sector.

The nations that favor free trade the most are those that are highly developed, but have small domestic markets. For example, the Netherlands has long been in favor of free trade. They have had a highly competent workforce for centuries, but their home market is too small. In fact all European nations have home markets that are too small. So free trade opens up other markets for them. In this sense the common market is great for Europe, though the EU is terrible politically.

However nations like the USA and China have both large populations and large, diverse geographic land masses. This provides them with a large domestic market as well as access to many of the natural resources they need and the ability to grow a wide variety of crops. Free trade is of less importance to these types of nations. They can engage in protectionist measures and not be hurt, unlike smaller market nations that would lose out in a protectionist world.

However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

It is not a case of industrial decline it is a case of high wages. The US is not in industrial decline and is producing much more per person than in the past due to automation. The factories are moved for one reason only - lower wage costs and ignore the long fought for environmental and worker safety regulations.

The container cranes in one US west coast port were built in China and floated across the ocean rather than have them built in the US. Do you really think that the US could not have built those cranes here? The ones on the east coast were built here because floating them from China isn't realistic.

If you go to any industrial trade show you see that any talk of America not keeping up or American businesses being out innovated is ridiculous. America is still home to many of the largest and world leading companies in their fields. Lincoln Electric is the largest welding products company in the world and they make robotic welders and cutting equipment for just about everything. Do they have innovative competitors in Japan and Europe, yes. Are there areas when Japanese and European products are better, yes. But the idea that everything we do is inferior is ridiculous.

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I'm convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn't find enough whores to absorb!”

That’s the problem with being an alpha male. Other men are constantly fretting about your secretions.

1. The real-life Hamilton isn’t cool; Hamilton as played by PoC Lin-Manuel Miranda is cool.

2. The only thing that matters when assessing US historical figures is whether they supported or opposed slavery.

3. Hamilton was for “modernization.” It doesn’t matter what the particulars of his economic ideas were; he was for modernization. Others were against modernization, and if they were put in charge modernity would never have arrived. QED

Most countries are in favour of protectionism while industrialising and trying to catch up with more developed nations. Once industrialised, they tend to switch to free trade so as to get other countries to buy their stuff and borrow their money. However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

Trump is unpopular because he's admitting that the US is in decline and needs to rebuild itself. He's also implying that the productive side of the US economy (farming, manufacturing, product design, etc) is just as important as the financial side. His neoliberal critics argue the opposite - production isn't that important and that the US should do as Britain has done and give priority to the financial sector.

The nations that favor free trade the most are those that are highly developed, but have small domestic markets. For example, the Netherlands has long been in favor of free trade. They have had a highly competent workforce for centuries, but their home market is too small. In fact all European nations have home markets that are too small. So free trade opens up other markets for them. In this sense the common market is great for Europe, though the EU is terrible politically.

However nations like the USA and China have both large populations and large, diverse geographic land masses. This provides them with a large domestic market as well as access to many of the natural resources they need and the ability to grow a wide variety of crops. Free trade is of less importance to these types of nations. They can engage in protectionist measures and not be hurt, unlike smaller market nations that would lose out in a protectionist world.

There is a good point here, especially about China. Historically, the Chinese never saw much point in trading with anyone. And they were usually right, China covers enough of the globe that it is pretty much self-sufficient.

They are into trade now, but only on their terms, and its seems mostly to allow them to steal technology.

This is kind of funny because all the celebrities on the genealogy shows like Finding Your Roots or Henry Louis Gates PBS piece sound like Victorians when it comes to THEIR ancestral traits and THEIR identity.

Cf Dustin Hoffman on a recent episode of FINDING YOUR ROOTS.After learning that the Bolsheviks had killed both his grandfather and his great-grandfather (and had also imprisoned his great-grandmother in a concentration camp for 5 years), he was reduced to tears and weepingly proclaimed "People ask me today, 'What are you? I say, 'I'm a Jew."

Much more nuanced, and less signalling, to say Hoffman’s family were basically “kulaks”, class victims, who died in gulags. Then you have to think about who ran those camps, and who all was victimized by those camps.

Yeah, Gates/the producers were quite clearly trying to go for some kind of Nazi analogy, seeing as how concentration camps= Nazi persecution of the Jews in the popular imagination. Of course, actual concentration camps precede the Nazis by a good bit (eg, the concentration camps used by the Spanish in Cuba and the British in South Africa). Here's what WIKIPEDIA (hence, usual caveats apply) has to say regarding the USSR at this time:

From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were "Vechecka Special-purpose Camps" (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel'nikh rabot). Various categories of prisoners were defined: petty criminals, POWs of the Russian Civil War, officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, political enemies, dissidents and other people deemed dangerous for the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Much more nuanced, and less signalling, to say Hoffman’s family were basically “kulaks”, class victims, who died in gulags. Then you have to think about who ran those camps, and who all was victimized by those camps.

Maybe that is the best tack the protectionist side can take; associate free traders with Southern slavers.

The greedy plantation owner who wants more foreign cheap labor via slavery, vs. the greedy CEO who wants more foreign cheap labor via open borders. There’s a farthing’s difference between the them at the rhetorical level. Neither is concerned over the damage he’s doing in the name of profit.

I still have more respect for the slaveholder though. He could honestly say he never intended to see his labor turned loose on the country, transforming and irreparably damaging it.

Joe Regular says

Troll chose this handle because he planned to regularly crap out shitty posts.

Cf Dustin Hoffman on a recent episode of FINDING YOUR ROOTS.After learning that the Bolsheviks had killed both his grandfather and his great-grandfather (and had also imprisoned his great-grandmother in a concentration camp for 5 years), he was reduced to tears and weepingly proclaimed “People ask me today, ‘What are you? I say, ‘I’m a Jew.”

A whole family rescued from the Holocaust all at once, and this guy’s crying.

Because the ideological valence of protectionism has shifted. In Hamilton’s day, it was the elite position (hence “cool”) and those who sought the votes of sharecropping proles were free traders (WJ Bryant, Jackson). Once the family farm became a thing of the past and the sons and grandsons of the Populists made their living on the shop floor instead of behind the plow, elites changed their views 180 degrees.

Most countries are in favour of protectionism while industrialising and trying to catch up with more developed nations. Once industrialised, they tend to switch to free trade so as to get other countries to buy their stuff and borrow their money. However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

Trump is unpopular because he's admitting that the US is in decline and needs to rebuild itself. He's also implying that the productive side of the US economy (farming, manufacturing, product design, etc) is just as important as the financial side. His neoliberal critics argue the opposite - production isn't that important and that the US should do as Britain has done and give priority to the financial sector.

However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

It is not a case of industrial decline it is a case of high wages. The US is not in industrial decline and is producing much more per person than in the past due to automation. The factories are moved for one reason only – lower wage costs and ignore the long fought for environmental and worker safety regulations.

The container cranes in one US west coast port were built in China and floated across the ocean rather than have them built in the US. Do you really think that the US could not have built those cranes here? The ones on the east coast were built here because floating them from China isn’t realistic.

If you go to any industrial trade show you see that any talk of America not keeping up or American businesses being out innovated is ridiculous. America is still home to many of the largest and world leading companies in their fields. Lincoln Electric is the largest welding products company in the world and they make robotic welders and cutting equipment for just about everything. Do they have innovative competitors in Japan and Europe, yes. Are there areas when Japanese and European products are better, yes. But the idea that everything we do is inferior is ridiculous.

Sure, US industry is becoming more efficient and is still relatively innovative, as is UK manufacturing for that matter, but the range of products produced does seem to be declining, as does the US share of the global market for manufactured products. I would classify that as relative decline if not absolute decline. Apart from the odd piece of farm machinery or big rig, I certainly don't see many US made products in Australia these days, despite Australia having a free trade deal with the US.

And what's up with US industry still using imperial measurements? Surely a nation that made manufacturing a priority would have switched to metrics by now.

Maybe that is the best tack the protectionist side can take; associate free traders with Southern slavers.

The greedy plantation owner who wants more foreign cheap labor via slavery, vs. the greedy CEO who wants more foreign cheap labor via open borders. There's a farthing's difference between the them at the rhetorical level. Neither is concerned over the damage he's doing in the name of profit.

I still have more respect for the slaveholder though. He could honestly say he never intended to see his labor turned loose on the country, transforming and irreparably damaging it.

Joe Regular says

Troll chose this handle because he planned to regularly crap out shitty posts.

Cf Dustin Hoffman on a recent episode of FINDING YOUR ROOTS.After learning that the Bolsheviks had killed both his grandfather and his great-grandfather (and had also imprisoned his great-grandmother in a concentration camp for 5 years), he was reduced to tears and weepingly proclaimed “People ask me today, ‘What are you? I say, ‘I’m a Jew.”

A whole family rescued from the Holocaust all at once, and this guy's crying.

Mike Nichols, Dustin Hoffman’s director in The Graduate, also came from an anti-Bolshevik Jewish family. They knew the Nabokovs in refugee circles in Berlin between the wars.

Most countries are in favour of protectionism while industrialising and trying to catch up with more developed nations. Once industrialised, they tend to switch to free trade so as to get other countries to buy their stuff and borrow their money. However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

Trump is unpopular because he's admitting that the US is in decline and needs to rebuild itself. He's also implying that the productive side of the US economy (farming, manufacturing, product design, etc) is just as important as the financial side. His neoliberal critics argue the opposite - production isn't that important and that the US should do as Britain has done and give priority to the financial sector.

Farming and manufacturing aren’t in decline. The US produces more food than ever and exports crops. Manufacturing output has increased. What has declined is farming and manufacturing employment.

The GOP Establishment on Fox News are complaining that Black Lies Matter protesters are being treated unfairly at Donald Trump rallies.

The GOP Establishment hates Donald Trump so much, that they see Black Lies Matter as the lesser of two evils when compared to The Donald.

The GOP Establishment wants Donald Trump to behave like a cuckservative beta male and just let Black Lies Matter take over the podium, just like they did with Bernie Sanders in Seattle.

There is not a dime’s worth a difference between The GOP Establishment and The Democratic Party.

The GOP Establishment saying Donald Trump is not Conservative enough is like the pot calling the kettle black. What has The GOP Establishment done for Conservatives lately? What victories did Conservatives gain under 8 years of George W. Bush?

Liberals however have gained a ton of victories under 8 years of Hussein Obama.

the Leftists made more gains under George W. than under Bill Clinton....expanded entitlements (medicare prescription benefits), expanded the department of education, embryo stem cell funding, increased government spending, his attempt at amnesty....wars against our self interest to spread democracy, the creation of another cabinet position and department of Homeland Security , the list goes on and on...

Reagan campaigned on it. The Mexicans were not enthusiastic and he could not get them on board. He did negotiate the Canadian-American free trade agreement that was ratified under Bush as well as "fast track" legislation. Nobody wants to hang it on Ronnie because it stinks, but if it hadn't you can bet that is all you would have heard. I think PCR (who was a big supporter at the time) wrote favorably in a book about it. Of course that was when the US companies were "exporting" equipment to build their assembly lines and we ran a brief trade surplus with Mexico.

Caitlyn Jenner goes on a tirade against Hillary Clinton on this Sunday’s episode of “I Am Cait,” insisting that the Democratic presidential candidate is a “f***ing liar” and the “country is over,” if she’s elected. Watch the video below!

As Gossip Cop reported, Season 2 of Jenner’s reality show sees her embarking on a bus tour with her transgender friends. During their trip, the women begin to argue politics after Chandi Moore asks Caitlyn her opinion of Donald Trump. “I think he would have a hard time with women,” says Jenner, who further offers, “It doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be good for women’s issues. I think he would be very good for women’s issues.”

The rest of the women groan at the lifelong Republican’s statement, but Jenner explains in a confessional, “Just because I’m a woman now doesn’t make me all of a sudden liberal.” The debate escalates when the women bring up Clinton, to which Jenner says, “I would never, ever, ever vote for Hillary… If Hillary becomes president, the country is over.”

Jenner’s friend Candis Cayne attempts to argue that there’s “a lot to love about Hillary,” and that she’s “an amazing woman,” but an annoyed Jenner starts yelling, “What has she done in her life?! What has she done?” The former Olympian adds, “She was a lousy senator. She was horrible. Look at all of the things that are going on in the Middle East, all because of what she did. Look at Benghazi. She lied to us! She’s a f***ing liar!”

It’s funny… it is obvious that analytically Jenner still thinks very much like a man.

"All these famous trans guys do — McCloskey, the Wachowskis, etc. Nothing feminine about their brains."

Caitlyn Jenner a Transgender person who lives in Hollywood is more Conservative than most Black Christians in the Southern bible belt states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, etc.

It is weird that such an extremely religious Christian group can be so pro-Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would feel more culturally at home at a Gay pride parade in New York City than in a Southern baptist church in Tupelo, Mississippi.

Japanese militarism in the 1930s had a lot to do with export markets shutting down, which meant calories per the rapidly increasing number of Japanese was falling, encouraging the Japanese to set off on wars of conquest.

Hitler had a similar Malthusian view, although there's no evidence that Germany was close to a Malthusian ceiling. Mostly Hitler just liked war and looked for rationales to refight the Great War and win this time.

In Clyde Prestowitz's Three Billion New Capitalists he points out that we also gave preferential access to our markets in exchange for continued US bases in foreign nations. This policy has continued post cold war.

No, it's not. We had trade surpluses into the late 70s, which was a full generation after the end of WWII, and started having significant trade deficits in the late 80s, when the Cold War was almost over and when the financial industry started dominating.

The media keeps referring to Puerto Ricans in the U.S as a swing vote demographic. What evidence do they have of that? Everything points to Puerto Ricans being part of The Democratic Party’s KKK Crazy Glue.

No Democratic candidate running in the general election for POTUS has ever lost the Puerto Rican vote.

Massive Puerto Rican immigration into the Sunshine state is the reason Florida is now the least Conservative state in the South.

If you want a real example of a demographic group that can truly be considered a swing vote demographic, look at White Californians. The majority of them voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Hussein Obama in 2008. The reason Mitt Romney won the White vote in California, but still lost the state overall is because of it’s huge population of Nonwhites from Mexico, Central America, and Asia.

Saying Puerto Ricans are a swing vote demographic who are not firmly in The Democratic Party camp is like saying diversity is our strength. Both are huge lies.

Reagan campaigned on it. The Mexicans were not enthusiastic and he could not get them on board. He did negotiate the Canadian-American free trade agreement that was ratified under Bush as well as “fast track” legislation. Nobody wants to hang it on Ronnie because it stinks, but if it hadn’t you can bet that is all you would have heard. I think PCR (who was a big supporter at the time) wrote favorably in a book about it. Of course that was when the US companies were “exporting” equipment to build their assembly lines and we ran a brief trade surplus with Mexico.

Much more nuanced, and less signalling, to say Hoffman's family were basically "kulaks", class victims, who died in gulags. Then you have to think about who ran those camps, and who all was victimized by those camps.

Yeah, Gates/the producers were quite clearly trying to go for some kind of Nazi analogy, seeing as how concentration camps= Nazi persecution of the Jews in the popular imagination. Of course, actual concentration camps precede the Nazis by a good bit (eg, the concentration camps used by the Spanish in Cuba and the British in South Africa). Here’s what WIKIPEDIA (hence, usual caveats apply) has to say regarding the USSR at this time:

From 1918, camp-type detention facilities were set up, as a reformed analogy of the earlier system of penal labor (katorgas), operated in Siberia in Imperial Russia. The two main types were “Vechecka Special-purpose Camps” (особые лагеря ВЧК, osobiye lagerya VChK) and forced labor camps (лагеря принудительных работ, lagerya prinuditel’nikh rabot). Various categories of prisoners were defined: petty criminals, POWs of the Russian Civil War, officials accused of corruption, sabotage and embezzlement, political enemies, dissidents and other people deemed dangerous for the state.

Much more nuanced, and less signalling, to say Hoffman’s family were basically “kulaks”, class victims, who died in gulags. Then you have to think about who ran those camps, and who all was victimized by those camps.

All these famous trans guys do -- McCloskey, the Wachowskis, etc. Nothing feminine about their brains.

“All these famous trans guys do — McCloskey, the Wachowskis, etc. Nothing feminine about their brains.”

Caitlyn Jenner a Transgender person who lives in Hollywood is more Conservative than most Black Christians in the Southern bible belt states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, etc.

It is weird that such an extremely religious Christian group can be so pro-Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would feel more culturally at home at a Gay pride parade in New York City than in a Southern baptist church in Tupelo, Mississippi.

For most of American history Hamilton was regarded with suspicion due to his designs to create an ‘imperial presidency’. More recently an ‘imperial presidency’ (aka the decider in chief) can be advocated in polite company. That Hamilton was an immigrant and the rumor that Hamilton was touched by the tar brush has also excited certain types imagination.

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I'm convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn't find enough whores to absorb!”

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I’m convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb!”

I haven’t yet read a Hamilton biography, but I’ve read some biographies of his contemporaries enough to feel like I have a vague handle on him.

One trait he and Trump may share is Hamilton did not suffer fools gladly. Many people approached him with ideas on how our banking system should work, etc., and if he listened to them, if the plan was stupid, he’d tell them to their face.

On more than one occasion during Washington’s presidency, an offended “person of importance” would seek a hearing with Washington, to let fly on how Hamilton had talked to them, he should be fired immediately, etc.

Typically, Washington would feign being appalled, and tell the offended he would call Hamilton in immediately and attend to the matter appropriately, while ushering the tearful and grateful offended party out the door.
He would then call Hamilton in, compare notes, laugh, and tell him “keep doing what you’re doing.”

Washington was well aware Hamilton was absolutely brilliant, and was eternally grateful to have him around.

I recall reading about Franklin’s opinion of Adams, btw. He said “sometimes Adams makes very good sense, while other times, he’s quite out of his mind.” This would lend to the idea that there was no way Adams would enjoy being around Hamilton, since Hamilton would tell Adams he was stupid to his face, while Franklin would never do that, yet Adams disliked Franklin too, essentially thought Franklin was a power-hungry conniving weasel, and set about rumors that Franklin was a turncoat.

In any case, I read enough about Adams to know he was eccentric to say the least, but by most accounts by people who matter, Hamilton kicked ass all day, every day.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren't all that much fun to read.

Fletcher's explanation is more Occamite: we ditched protectionism after WWII to prop up our allies in the Cold War.

Japanese militarism in the 1930s had a lot to do with export markets shutting down, which meant calories per the rapidly increasing number of Japanese was falling, encouraging the Japanese to set off on wars of conquest.

Hitler had a similar Malthusian view, although there’s no evidence that Germany was close to a Malthusian ceiling. Mostly Hitler just liked war and looked for rationales to refight the Great War and win this time.

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I’m convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb!”

I haven't yet read a Hamilton biography, but I've read some biographies of his contemporaries enough to feel like I have a vague handle on him.

One trait he and Trump may share is Hamilton did not suffer fools gladly. Many people approached him with ideas on how our banking system should work, etc., and if he listened to them, if the plan was stupid, he'd tell them to their face.

On more than one occasion during Washington's presidency, an offended "person of importance" would seek a hearing with Washington, to let fly on how Hamilton had talked to them, he should be fired immediately, etc.

Typically, Washington would feign being appalled, and tell the offended he would call Hamilton in immediately and attend to the matter appropriately, while ushering the tearful and grateful offended party out the door.
He would then call Hamilton in, compare notes, laugh, and tell him "keep doing what you're doing."

Washington was well aware Hamilton was absolutely brilliant, and was eternally grateful to have him around.

I recall reading about Franklin's opinion of Adams, btw. He said "sometimes Adams makes very good sense, while other times, he's quite out of his mind." This would lend to the idea that there was no way Adams would enjoy being around Hamilton, since Hamilton would tell Adams he was stupid to his face, while Franklin would never do that, yet Adams disliked Franklin too, essentially thought Franklin was a power-hungry conniving weasel, and set about rumors that Franklin was a turncoat.

In any case, I read enough about Adams to know he was eccentric to say the least, but by most accounts by people who matter, Hamilton kicked ass all day, every day.

Well... except one day.

Hamilton was just ridiculously smart and hard-working.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren’t all that much fun to read.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren’t all that much fun to read.

In small doses, John Adams is a lot of fun to read. His constant put-downs of nearly everyone around him can be quite entertaining.

Benjamin Franklin (where his material hasn't dated) also holds up quite well. Judging by the reactions of my students, his Autobiography is the first literary work by an American that 21st century people can read with pleasure.

Although he was a lightweight in terms of ideational content, Washington Irving was the first American man of letters to possess a truly graceful (by modern standards) prose style. Just about everything that he wrote reads quite smoothly.

James Fenimore Cooper, in contrast, was Irving's mirror image. Plenty of ideas, but a leaden prose style*

Fletcher's explanation is more Occamite: we ditched protectionism after WWII to prop up our allies in the Cold War.

In Clyde Prestowitz’s Three Billion New Capitalists he points out that we also gave preferential access to our markets in exchange for continued US bases in foreign nations. This policy has continued post cold war.

The nations that favor free trade the most are those that are highly developed, but have small domestic markets. For example, the Netherlands has long been in favor of free trade. They have had a highly competent workforce for centuries, but their home market is too small. In fact all European nations have home markets that are too small. So free trade opens up other markets for them. In this sense the common market is great for Europe, though the EU is terrible politically.

However nations like the USA and China have both large populations and large, diverse geographic land masses. This provides them with a large domestic market as well as access to many of the natural resources they need and the ability to grow a wide variety of crops. Free trade is of less importance to these types of nations. They can engage in protectionist measures and not be hurt, unlike smaller market nations that would lose out in a protectionist world.

There is a good point here, especially about China. Historically, the Chinese never saw much point in trading with anyone. And they were usually right, China covers enough of the globe that it is pretty much self-sufficient.

They are into trade now, but only on their terms, and its seems mostly to allow them to steal technology.

The GOP Establishment on Fox News are complaining that Black Lies Matter protesters are being treated unfairly at Donald Trump rallies.

The GOP Establishment hates Donald Trump so much, that they see Black Lies Matter as the lesser of two evils when compared to The Donald.

The GOP Establishment wants Donald Trump to behave like a cuckservative beta male and just let Black Lies Matter take over the podium, just like they did with Bernie Sanders in Seattle.

There is not a dime's worth a difference between The GOP Establishment and The Democratic Party.

The GOP Establishment saying Donald Trump is not Conservative enough is like the pot calling the kettle black. What has The GOP Establishment done for Conservatives lately? What victories did Conservatives gain under 8 years of George W. Bush?

Liberals however have gained a ton of victories under 8 years of Hussein Obama.

the Leftists made more gains under George W. than under Bill Clinton….expanded entitlements (medicare prescription benefits), expanded the department of education, embryo stem cell funding, increased government spending, his attempt at amnesty….wars against our self interest to spread democracy, the creation of another cabinet position and department of Homeland Security , the list goes on and on…

Actually those gains fade in comparison to the Amnesty they managed to pass in 1986. That pushed CA firmly into D fold and rendered D presidential dominance 1992 onward. Also, the tax cuts on upper class put the national debt on track to infinity.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren't all that much fun to read.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren’t all that much fun to read.

In small doses, John Adams is a lot of fun to read. His constant put-downs of nearly everyone around him can be quite entertaining.

Benjamin Franklin (where his material hasn’t dated) also holds up quite well. Judging by the reactions of my students, his Autobiography is the first literary work by an American that 21st century people can read with pleasure.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren't all that much fun to read.

RE: the evolution of American prose,

Although he was a lightweight in terms of ideational content, Washington Irving was the first American man of letters to possess a truly graceful (by modern standards) prose style. Just about everything that he wrote reads quite smoothly.

James Fenimore Cooper, in contrast, was Irving’s mirror image. Plenty of ideas, but a leaden prose style*

Japanese militarism in the 1930s had a lot to do with export markets shutting down, which meant calories per the rapidly increasing number of Japanese was falling, encouraging the Japanese to set off on wars of conquest.

Hitler had a similar Malthusian view, although there's no evidence that Germany was close to a Malthusian ceiling. Mostly Hitler just liked war and looked for rationales to refight the Great War and win this time.

One issue in making sense of these guys is that nobody in America was a really good prose stylist yet the way a handful of Brits (e.g., Gibbon) and quite a few Frenchmen were. So most of the Founding Fathers aren't all that much fun to read.

You cite Gibbon? Of course no one can measure up to that sui generis. It is an unfair comparison. Gibbon said he dreamed in French. His command of language was preternatural.

But reading the Federalist Papers is great fun. And while Gibbon’s anti-Christian bias was risible, the practical insight of the Madison, Jay and Hamilton holds up well.

“That bastard brat of a Scottish peddler! His ambition, his restlessness and all his grandiose schemes come, I'm convinced, from a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn't find enough whores to absorb!”

Fletcher's explanation is more Occamite: we ditched protectionism after WWII to prop up our allies in the Cold War.

No, it’s not. We had trade surpluses into the late 70s, which was a full generation after the end of WWII, and started having significant trade deficits in the late 80s, when the Cold War was almost over and when the financial industry started dominating.

Japanese militarism in the 1930s had a lot to do with export markets shutting down, which meant calories per the rapidly increasing number of Japanese was falling, encouraging the Japanese to set off on wars of conquest.

Hitler had a similar Malthusian view, although there's no evidence that Germany was close to a Malthusian ceiling. Mostly Hitler just liked war and looked for rationales to refight the Great War and win this time.

the Leftists made more gains under George W. than under Bill Clinton....expanded entitlements (medicare prescription benefits), expanded the department of education, embryo stem cell funding, increased government spending, his attempt at amnesty....wars against our self interest to spread democracy, the creation of another cabinet position and department of Homeland Security , the list goes on and on...

Actually those gains fade in comparison to the Amnesty they managed to pass in 1986. That pushed CA firmly into D fold and rendered D presidential dominance 1992 onward. Also, the tax cuts on upper class put the national debt on track to infinity.

However, free trade becomes problematic once a developed nation peaks and go into industrial decline.

It is not a case of industrial decline it is a case of high wages. The US is not in industrial decline and is producing much more per person than in the past due to automation. The factories are moved for one reason only - lower wage costs and ignore the long fought for environmental and worker safety regulations.

The container cranes in one US west coast port were built in China and floated across the ocean rather than have them built in the US. Do you really think that the US could not have built those cranes here? The ones on the east coast were built here because floating them from China isn't realistic.

If you go to any industrial trade show you see that any talk of America not keeping up or American businesses being out innovated is ridiculous. America is still home to many of the largest and world leading companies in their fields. Lincoln Electric is the largest welding products company in the world and they make robotic welders and cutting equipment for just about everything. Do they have innovative competitors in Japan and Europe, yes. Are there areas when Japanese and European products are better, yes. But the idea that everything we do is inferior is ridiculous.

Sure, US industry is becoming more efficient and is still relatively innovative, as is UK manufacturing for that matter, but the range of products produced does seem to be declining, as does the US share of the global market for manufactured products. I would classify that as relative decline if not absolute decline. Apart from the odd piece of farm machinery or big rig, I certainly don’t see many US made products in Australia these days, despite Australia having a free trade deal with the US.

And what’s up with US industry still using imperial measurements? Surely a nation that made manufacturing a priority would have switched to metrics by now.

Yes but it all still has to do with manufacturers moving to Asia for cheap labor. I paid 60 dollars for a US made Craftsman 3/8 inch drill in 1982 and I still have it. I have been through 4 Harbor Freight 35 dollar right angle drills in the last 5 years. Even high end stuff has moved overseas, maybe not China but Taiwan. I was looking for an air tool once and wanted to buy American - even Senco had moved their production to Taiwan for that type of tool, why not buy the Harbor freight for a one time job and sell it on ebay?

As far as metrics are concerned, it doesn't make much difference in this age of computerization what units of measurement you use.

That may well be, but we’ve had a few centuries of experience since then.

Protectionism is a mixed bag. There’s no way to do it without creating (domestic) losers as well as winners. Protect our computer chip makers, and you jack up input costs to our computer system makers (Dell, Cisco…) thus harming them. Protect our farm equipment makers and you harm our farmers. Protect our shoe makers: goodbye $20 shoes.

There *may* be some optimal way to balance these interests and so maximize some sensible measure of social welfare. But in the US policy isn’t made by a benevolent omniscient dictator. It’s made, sausage-like, through legislative dealing driven by competitive lobbying and rent seeking.

Handing ever more such power to the political process isn’t going to get us to any optimum, or close to it. What it is sure to do is increase the return to influence peddling.

There’s a lot we can like about Trump, but the protectionism isn’t one of them.

That's true, though Trump seems to view and to be selling protectionism as a quasi-private jobs program, rather than as some ideal policy that will benefit everyone in the economy. It's politically impossible to have something like the Works Progress Administration today, but a quasi-private jobs program through protectionism could be feasible.

That may well be, but we've had a few centuries of experience since then.

Protectionism is a mixed bag. There's no way to do it without creating (domestic) losers as well as winners. Protect our computer chip makers, and you jack up input costs to our computer system makers (Dell, Cisco...) thus harming them. Protect our farm equipment makers and you harm our farmers. Protect our shoe makers: goodbye $20 shoes.

There *may* be some optimal way to balance these interests and so maximize some sensible measure of social welfare. But in the US policy isn't made by a benevolent omniscient dictator. It's made, sausage-like, through legislative dealing driven by competitive lobbying and rent seeking.

Handing ever more such power to the political process isn't going to get us to any optimum, or close to it. What it is sure to do is increase the return to influence peddling.

There's a lot we can like about Trump, but the protectionism isn't one of them.

That’s true, though Trump seems to view and to be selling protectionism as a quasi-private jobs program, rather than as some ideal policy that will benefit everyone in the economy. It’s politically impossible to have something like the Works Progress Administration today, but a quasi-private jobs program through protectionism could be feasible.

It’s politically impossible to have something like the Works Progress Administration today, but a quasi-private jobs program through protectionism could be feasible.

More feasible and more desirable. But only if it has the desired effect of increasing employment, which I am not so sure about. To use my example of chips versus systems: does Intel end up hiring more people than Dell lays off?

What will increase employment unambiguously is to limit competition in the domestic labor market. Ie abolish H1B, H2B and send the illegals packing.

That's true, though Trump seems to view and to be selling protectionism as a quasi-private jobs program, rather than as some ideal policy that will benefit everyone in the economy. It's politically impossible to have something like the Works Progress Administration today, but a quasi-private jobs program through protectionism could be feasible.

It’s politically impossible to have something like the Works Progress Administration today, but a quasi-private jobs program through protectionism could be feasible.

More feasible and more desirable. But only if it has the desired effect of increasing employment, which I am not so sure about. To use my example of chips versus systems: does Intel end up hiring more people than Dell lays off?

What will increase employment unambiguously is to limit competition in the domestic labor market. Ie abolish H1B, H2B and send the illegals packing.

Sure, US industry is becoming more efficient and is still relatively innovative, as is UK manufacturing for that matter, but the range of products produced does seem to be declining, as does the US share of the global market for manufactured products. I would classify that as relative decline if not absolute decline. Apart from the odd piece of farm machinery or big rig, I certainly don't see many US made products in Australia these days, despite Australia having a free trade deal with the US.

And what's up with US industry still using imperial measurements? Surely a nation that made manufacturing a priority would have switched to metrics by now.

Yes but it all still has to do with manufacturers moving to Asia for cheap labor. I paid 60 dollars for a US made Craftsman 3/8 inch drill in 1982 and I still have it. I have been through 4 Harbor Freight 35 dollar right angle drills in the last 5 years. Even high end stuff has moved overseas, maybe not China but Taiwan. I was looking for an air tool once and wanted to buy American – even Senco had moved their production to Taiwan for that type of tool, why not buy the Harbor freight for a one time job and sell it on ebay?

As far as metrics are concerned, it doesn’t make much difference in this age of computerization what units of measurement you use.

Hamilton was much better looking than Trump is and according to Gore Vidal and others Hamilton was gay (I don't believe he was).

Trump gay? Don't think so.

Alexander Hamilton’s biggest scandal was when he was seduced by a married woman who drew the affair out as long as she could and, with the help of her husband, blackmailed him. Probably not gay. Some of the other founders finally took him aside and figured out what was going on.